Thursday, November 08, 2007

Youtube: the medium of choice for killers.

So I got to work and because I wasn't logged in to youtube, I searched for it, and came up with this link. It's a story on, about how supposedly, youtube is the medium of choice for killers.

Now, I have a few problems with this. First of all, it's mainstream media attacking the unreglated areas of media like Youtube and blogs. That's not THAT new, so really, this post is kind of (totally) not adding anything new to the 'debate'. Mainstream established news have had this kind of campaign against the internet and self publishing since it started. They hate Wikipedia and never let an opportunity to make sure everyone knows that it's not 100% factually correct because ANYONE CAN CHANGE WHAT IT SAYS (omgwtfetc) go by. Then there were the blogs- I can imagine this article being written about blogs a few years ago. 'Website reveals inner thoughts of stalking sicko!' etc.

Ugh, this is rambling, I know. I can't concentrate nd i am on a really slow computer with a terrible keyboard.

Anyway, my issue is that the media KEEP doing this!! It's the future, assholes. You are becoming obsolete. The world is marching on and either keep up or shut up. It's not going to stop, with or without you.

I make videos and I am not a killer. The same goes for every single person I watch. This kind of article is harmful because it villainises the community of youtube and means that people like my mum and dad will read it and think that it's some kind of a given that I will come into contact with that kind of thing.

I also hate how this seems to make out like there is some sort of select group of people who have the right to broadcast whatever they want to. (ie, the established media). Like it is clearly harmful to allow the everyman to broadcast themselves, unregulated by 'the man', because they will turn into murderers and happy slappers. It assumes that self publishers online want the same thing that mainstream media wants- the maximum amount of exposure.

Those assholes already existed, and they will always exist, its just now there is an outlet for that kind of thing. We have a window into these people's lives, like it or not. You don't have the right to dictate what the world is shown and what it watches. Not anymore.


WildbillthePirate said...

Every advancement of communication has always been villified by those who had control of it previously. The Church wasn't happy that the Bible could be made available to the common man. Advancement in the sharing of ideas,opinion,Art etc... means loss of censorship over the public arena. That someone would use it to broadcast their despiration isn't new. That someone would blame the medium for the message isn't either.

BadAlbert said...

Interesting that isn't it? Then they go and plaster pictures of these people who go on shooting rampages all over the front pages. Not that such things shouldn't be reported but more and more the news is all about entertainment, and less about informing people. There is no such thing as the fourth estate. Mass communication in the hands of the masses has always been problematic to the ruling elite, the church, the state. Which is why the corporate mass media demonises things like the internet precisely because it is not controlled - 'regulated', and therefore not working toward the same end, which is to regulate, pacify, and control public opinion. Unregulated communication is therefore a problem.

Chris said...

don't worry about a thing! If Youtube gets taken over, we'll move somewhere else! You just keep being you, it's your older stuff that got me interested in your videos and I've been a loyal fan ever since. I'm pretty new to posting videos but I'm trying, crick14 is my name on YT. Keep up the good work hon!

Alexandrou said...

Goodness gracious we are in a debating mood today arent we? I pretty much agree with everything your saying PL, got to hand it to the media though they are pretty intelligent in what they do. However its all pretty futile, its not as if every killer has a blog and posts videos concerning how their day is going XD Which would actually be a pretty interesting blog to watch but thats an entirely different story.

Anonymous said...


Mainstream media is busted--particularly the newspapers like the New York Times. Google is eating up the ad revenues of the corporate world at the expenses of mainsteam media, and I love it. Media types are always the most hostile when their kingdom is being shaken.

As to their "stalker breeding" point, I wouldn't be particularly upset if you became my stalker. You wouldn't even have to hide in the bushes. So, let it slide off your back.


HaX said...

Formerly the media, could hide all the annoying things (for the goverment or themselves), but nowadays, the media fortunately couldn't hide anything, because in the most of countries the internet is free of censures, and obviously you can express your opinion, and share it with all over the world,also you can find people with the same opinion as you, which means that you can join with other people with same opinon and organize protests If you think that something is unfair.
moreover don't like this because the internet is stealing them audience, for these reasons I think that the media are attacking youtube and similar webpages.
I'm a active user of internet, and i've never seen a video of someone explaining their plans to kill somebody, also i'm the webmaster of some pages and I never killed anybody, so we can say that these cases are infrequent.

tejayce said...

they blamed it on videogames on the radio here.

first they said, he left a detailed explanation of his motives and his background on the internet. but instead of forwarding this information, they completly ignored it, and started to analyze "why" he has done it. of course some so-called "expert" blamed videogames.

theres a good reason why people do these things imo. theres a good reason why they become mentaly unstable. and often they know exactly what the reasons are. but noone listens. everyone is too afraid to realize, they might be a part of those reasons.

great post. i didnt think i would be commenting on your blog, but if you keep posting like now .. i cant help myself :)

Mike said...

Imagine a killer went on a rampage shooting up a building, and then when he had attracted news cameras, put up a large sign promoting his website. Should the news crews blur out the address of his website, if they can?

Similarly, should youtube and other sources edit their content so that the views of the killer is not promoted more than it would be had he not done his killing (or even less, as a disincentive for his behavior?

Obviously there are practical problems, and very reasonable arguments from a free speech and free press perspective. I wonder if there is a clever solution to the problem that allows us to diminish the benefits from killings of this type, but doesn't cost us more than we're willing to pay in terms of rights, et c.